Agnostic.com

22 5

LINK Supreme Court Cross Case: Memorial Can Stand On Public Land : NPR

Nothing religious about a crucifix?!?!?

jerry99 8 June 20
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

22 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

10

We should put this temple right in front of it.

And demand the government pay to maintain it.

8

I read that earlier today and my first thought is that other religious symbols need to be added to the site! This cross does not represent all the people in America, nor what what the Nation stands for! What about the original inhabitants of this land? Should something representing the original people be put there...I believe so! I don’t care how long it has been standing there, we are not a ‘nation of the cross!’ If other symbols representing all the different people’s beliefs in this Country, I would be OK with it!

For me, I'd like a giant question mark.

6

Wow! The decision is all political spin. The court turned truth inside out.

This is the work of Mitch McTurtle blocking Obama's moderate appointment to give us another right-wing ideologue, now a majority. It only gets worse from here as they figure out how far they can go without open rebellion of the people.

6

What a crock! Blow it up!

bingst Level 8 June 20, 2019
6

Yeah but they also want public funds to repair the damn thing is crumbling to pieces.

Public Funds ...then it should be damned!

4

So if the cross is not a symbol of religion just think of all the fun we can have with it.

3

IMO it was a reasonable decision. There are no limits to where this might have gone if the cross had been ordered down.

Consider public libraries. Within those libraries are books of art that show churches with crosses. Would you order that those books be destroyed? Also there are many religious books in the libraries, books that actively advocate for particular religions. What about all the books that just mention a particular religion?

The critical factor here is that the government is not maintaining the library books for the purpose of establishing a religion, and the State of Maryland is not maintaining a concrete cross for the purpose of establishing a religion.

If you are troubled by the sight of a symbol perhaps you are insecure in your atheism and need to do further contemplation.

I don't want our tax dollars being used to maintain any religious symbols. Put it on private lands maintained by private funds. Maybe one of the evangelical preachers could sell off one of his jets to pay for it?

@jerry99 Does that include religious books in publicly funded libraries?

@WilliamFleming I'm okay with that as long as it includes a decent selection from multiple religious traditions, along with the associated books on critical analyses of religious teachings. Seem reasonable to you?

@jerry99 Yes. I’ve noticed that small-town libraries tend to be well stocked with Christian books, and only a few books about other religions. Maybe it’s based on demand. I’ve never asked, but maybe they’d send out for books on other religions, or for those critical analyses.

What if a city acquired an old church building and turned it into a museum? Should that be legal? Presumably there would be religious icons in the building, maybe a cross on top.

Some of those old churches are very beautiful but are falling into disuse. They would be a great addition to a historical district. That would be better than have them deteriorate IMO. Remember, the purpose would not be to establish a religion or favor a particular religion—just to keep the city looking nice.

3

I think I figured out a good compromise for this situation... Cut the horizontal arms off. Think about it... It would still be a WWI monument, and would no longer be a religious symbol on government property. Win win.

I'm sure that won't satisfy proponents for maintaining the memorial.

I have another idea: remove the arms, and add to the top a peace symbol. It's called the Peace Cross after all. 😛

3

Justice Alito wrote the decision opinion. Elena Kagan defected and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the 7-2 ruling in the case.

With democratic justices like Kagan who needs enemies?

With 5 or 6 Catholics on the court (depending on how you count Gorsuch), it's pretty clear how they're going to rule on religious questions.

3

Not surprising. I can't imagine how the other more reasonable members felt about this insidious decision.

2

I have to agree with the dissenters (Ginsburg and Sotomayor) in this case. The cross is a religious symbol and as such it not only promotes one religion over all others but also over non-religion. Since it is on public land and is being maintained by the State it violates the First Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. I do not agree with Justice Alito that its removal would constitute a State move against religion, any more than pulling a thorn from ones foot it a move against flowering plants. The cross does not belong there, period. I believe I have a solution to the problem. Just cut the arms off the cross and leave the upright part standing. Then it becomes an obelisk, a neutral symbol. It is a fair compromise. Doubtless the religionists would object, but that just goes to show that it is the religious symbology, staking out this land as a Christian country, that matters to them. They need to suck it up and get over it. This country was founded on secularism.

2

If the object in question is the one pictured, that isn’t a crucifix, since there is no body being crucified, it’s just a cross. But I highly doubt that if the person x-tians claim to worship actually existed and died similar to the tale in the bible, the object he was executed on looked anything remotely similar to this. This is an extremely idealized version of the device the Romans used to execute criminals.

It's symbolic. An object need not be an exact replica in order to be a symbol.

@maturin1919 What?

@bingst Indeed. If it wasn't symbolic of religion, why are so many religious people demanding it stay up?

@maturin1919 Roman Catholic cross, which is quite religious, not a Roman cross. Roman Catholic and the old Roman Empire are two completely different things. The original comment stated this was a crucifix, nothing is being crucified on this symbolic cross. The cross the Roman Empire would use to crucify a person didn’t resemble this even a little bit.

@bingst You missed my point also, it’s not a crucifix, it’s a cross. The OP called it a crucifix. Does anyone even read anymore or just react?

@maturin1919 Not sure why you aren’t getting it nor why I’m bothering to respond, I never said it wasn’t a cross ffs, the OP said it was a crucifix. Like I stated in my reply to the OP, there is a body being crucified on their, it’s not a crucifix. To be a crucifix it needs to have something be crucified on it, this is pre crucifiction, just a cross. Don’t reply anymore, I’m done...

2

It is a historic monument for fallen shoulders something seen in graveyards not a statement of belief

bobwjr Level 10 June 20, 2019

Firstly, it isn't a graveyard. Secondly, it's on government-owned land. Thirdly, they want to use taxpayer funds to maintain it.

1

Yes, nothing religious about a crucifix. Anyone remember the movie "The Sign of the Cross?" The original translations we have today say it was a stake. Ask yourself how churches would use a stake or make the sign of the stake? This makes the crucifix a very important religious symbol.

I will need to check out that movie.

1

It's a cross not a crucifix, but would the decision have been the same if the monument were in the shape of a six-pointed star or crescent moon.

JimG Level 8 June 21, 2019

Thanks, I didn't know that -- "A crucifix is a cross with a depiction of Jesus on it"

1

How about a huge "A" for atheist!

1

Who was the other dissenter along with RBG? I worry about those court decisions as it just fuel to the Christian fire.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor
Page 67
[supremecourt.gov]

1

"Honor them all (not just Christians) because war isn't sacred and valor is a secular virtue." ~ The Humanist magazine

1

I haven't read the decision, but NPR's summary seems to imply that this is an extra-constitutional indeterminate time limit on rectifying violations of the Constitution. This sets a bad precedent, possibly applicable to other cases that might arise; cases in which the violation has some kind of history, and not necessarily a very long history.

bingst Level 8 June 20, 2019
0

I find it funny that Christians have no idea where their religion or its symbols come from. The cross not only predates Christianity, but predates all Abrahamic faiths by more than a 1,000 years, and is entirely Pagan.

The "crucifixion" would have looked more like this picture, just a simple stake. Every reference in the bible refer to a stake, limb, or tree. And wood was a bit precious, the Romans would not have been wasteful with it. It is very likely those stakes were permanently in the ground, and they would cut down a dead guy and put up another.

0

I think they should build the bypass through it, you need bypasses you know 🤣

A hyperspace bypass would be nice.

@jerry99 yeah, yeah that's the ticket.🤭

0

It’s a small matter, not worth a lot of emotional energy.
If someone wants to put up some symbol I don’t care as long as they don’t try to make me kneel and vow allegiance or coerce me into belief.

The crucifixion and resurrection, even if they happened as claimed, are totally meaningless and trivial. What is the miracle is that any of us exist at all.

That is worth emotional energy!

I think you missed that this is a Supreme Court ruling that effects all such cases and seems to set a bad precedent.

@bingst I didn’t miss that it was a Supreme Court ruling, but I doubt it sets much of a precedent. The thing stood there for a hundred years without challenge—that is the precedent. 7-2 makes it pretty definite.

Try putting up a new cross on public land and I doubt you’d get very far.

@WilliamFleming As far as I know, there is no time limit on constitutional violations. This ruling constructs one, and of indeterminate length. In future cases, of any nature, whether or not dealing with the Establishment Clause, the history of the violation could be long enough to let it stand, even if that history could be measured in a matter of a few years.

How do you feel about your tax dollars going to maintain religious symbols or your government thereby promoting the religion?

@dare2dream It’s not happening. I pay no taxes to Maryland, but if I did I wouldn’t be bothered.

I am secure enough in my religious orientation not to feel threatened by mere symbols.

The prospect of Roy Moore as a senator—now THAT is something to be concerned about.

@dare2dream, @bingst People were not concerned for a hundred years. They were secure in their religious opinions and beliefs and did not feel threatened by a the presence of a mere symbol.

@SeaGreenEyez According to NPR:

“The decision could have sweeping implications in terms of symbols, like crosses and the Ten Commandments that are already constructed. Those that are already there are unlikely to be removed, but putting up new crosses or other religious symbols on public property very likely would not stand under Thursday's ruling.”

In other words, no precedents are being set.

Anyway, the place to argue about such things is in the legislative branch. If you don’t want the thing there you should take it up with the Maryland legislature. I don’t like these end runs through the courts to address everyone’s grievances.

@SeaGreenEyez If the Maryland legislature votes to take it down, then there is no precedent one way or another.

See my post above about libraries.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:363371
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.